Submitted to:

2009 MONITORING REPORT for

MARION MITIGATION BANK MARION, OR

(Phases I, II and III)

Oregon Department of State Lands U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers

Submitted by: Marion Mitigation Bank, LLC 4853 NW Bruno Place Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 758-0057

Prepared by: R.P. Novitzki & Associates, Inc.

4853 NW Bruno Place Corvallis, OR 97330

(541) 758-0057

.... ...........

31\t:JS .oor

I.OOZ lPJBW PSUBISU! lJSAino JO snutWJa 1

L

)

ff 'T()J 4fi','r't! ~ ~' ~~I -nJ:Jfq ff ·r l!ltht £bin r1 ~rl 'Uf,.., ~tar~ tAJ

! ~"'"f'P1 ~:qa/ ;dq_ -VJ~,-1 ~:~~vj

rw11~rr;if lll!j}I'H ~'Pf?~u;, Cj'IM1f~jfl ( ~~#If' Ni~v i

~~U!fU¥Mi S!.~'1"~Yd I ~1f41~ ~~ ! TA'J~.'tt 1?1./}lj/ I

-v3J!WIP ~11! /1'-:J-~~ 'fr11ttttf ~!'JJI41 '1111k:f:'

ryi1Jf '111~fJ Yt+11tnl ~ !!frJfiJfoy ~A:J ~ !/1-fr' 1!1ft/fi

""'fd#att14'; ~rnt7J ~,,~~ 1:2f5tl~-7~?(/

1 1 ~N lfrl ~~ g g -h 'Z .kr ~ ~ -er aJ 1 -8: fJ 1 J .Jl t..g I 1

f...JFJ 9

-Yh --{}(]) k~ f)

I QJ ;;,

~~ f) l I hffl B .t, ~

p b

01-lf-_>, _l...{Y::MC!Jf/;;1 f"';JN I ;281h!J {1/tl W

J ~t-

1 -z. I I

--.?Jt1!;1f,ll?:!t ~11'{'"'1

-j)~1A#1f tf ~fj

~otr'!.q ~'w , ---.4~41'.;f?"f/11j~ ~~i~"-v . /lfjl {rt;, , p 0

.-..n!_,W1111l'11J Y{?Yl

(r-r' tut.f J Y~~lf -v(J !!l ~ f!I'JIIIOh[f_ i

~l,~~ "~{~~??(] ~-----b~~~~~~~~~~------

01-tf--f ff)1?t/l t; I [/J1c/ J 5

t #IJIJ g,ww

of, {'~ 7JKf/17 j£Pt:JJ ~ ,~ 9VIU

-{ ~----'7 _u~JM'dB/d;;

01'}-'1 I ~IJd f!WW

g J

~}

B

I ;J!iA! J 7i.J1 WI (J/---1--PJ /(JJ t~:;

?

~'I L0Dr11 ~ rJ.oV W\ '\} Figure 8. Phase ll restoration and planting plan. (Base map provided by Udell Engineering.)

p IJ~ 10 ,, 0

.{t .n;r, W?Y~ (}\ __.(}-\ if $ ~~ . I ?.4~

f;t '(J -t -b \ ~/,,'}? J#W ~ }Pwf

A

~ h ~ h (t 7Z

J -tl J /Ar-h 1 I

-tl J1 I

$h

' h t-,!_.~1-U'JJO V'¥1I/Y~t17f £_ Yvwn ~o1J 9?/W M f/

~ b ¥zJI}ylwq ~ fl a~ ~~ .wr~y4f!.>J 1r ~I' ~rv ..., 1lV/ if ?!Mrfl~?l ~~ '1111.:] l ~ "4)J~ ~(j

...AM/i'{fv4b}yowq w"1f"tfi ~jt_uaj!,fS14~ 0 '1!f t. "'/Jt!ttf

V:?/J.?rti7Y.-t/~ U1!1jd t4t/~ IIi

r., ll" ~.A V'f "Yl?t:f ~/1/( ~~

(~ ~) ->~/j:f'/14101(« i114tj1;1 -:ri'f?lt?t~cfic ~VvY~A~p?-fl ~Jy-~wv;tl ".?~ ~1 t/

~/J??J_A?UI 1/ r>.JJ{~M?j1

-.:1-A?~'~/ xtr:;;; ~u(fUl'WlJ Zf...tAJfii?Yd

~~14/jl I ~a.J-1 ~r; Yl?~U~ 5111fit~;"tf >~~~~~ Cz!~t7j:f

-,Mn;h-rtf ~11 ~1-"/~//1/j v{4( /1! fnJ

JJ1f!W '"¥111Ut?-J

-v11'o/Jf ;rp11 1f I f)£ /I

» of (J

g

1

I /}

~

~ -z -z £. Oft

~ /;.

1 *' ~ '{ 8' d(\A\

~dJ ~!f'UM1'-7'111q

~('? '~w '&,y, fv?f:' ~flO ~~?-/3 ~vf I!.? ~ :r o/ itfi

( /"~~ ~?11f ),¥!f) WJUo:rl "'a; :lf_t{ f!jdYtJ lw

,._/!~I tf 'YI 1' '1M 111 { /";/:!~ "l1 J¥0 ~1. .£tJ 1flll fr!

1tjAV '91 5?1 ljfl

-"?7 ~uJMv~d ?fr.)I/J

W?J/1'7 ftlloJ;; fl)itl

/II /C)

~~ ~

~~} '~'= ~~ "

~

~

~

~

~

,.... ,.._

"""

"'[, ~~~~ c;'" !.)tJ". !>YJ/-Ffl Xi"'ll 'tf ~ ~A

!I

I

J -wttd~W~Aif ~n~qaj~t/2 / ~jJ.Yt!/)v4'f} ?M!t/

~11~tp'f "/A !/7f~

'"rd ~ (/ '1'~'!1. Yt?/J y. MjCfl ;17rf/1'?/ ~eA11.(1 ~C/

~~::44 17~n~ti '?'YU?(7l,~~dJ -n,'/*-1

y~t1 ""llVJ 971/1 f/';;;, ~-nrlct ~~~ Jmur;)/;

~~P;J 7-f-1M?Jift/l -vw~ _,fJ' "'?1(1

7U/?ll?'l 1M rJ: I !ft-!t ~/PJjftJ~W ...unfJr~j

-y I' .:r> , !"7 2 /} -v?J.1AJ11111"tl 'Y ~1 J/1

f/11 (Ydii;t;IG If {;If/ rv

tl/ ---7

I

... _. .. 2009 Phase 1

25 5 2 rem 3.7

[Marion Miuyc::u•u'' Bank Plant Mu!"lituring 2009 Phase 1 1

!Scrub-Shrub • Type I Cover(%)

Sample Station 1 t Name !Native MTI • Wet I E-0351 E-0521 E-01361 E·109IE"'123 F-0091 S·011IS.0201 8·0211 S-040! S-04618.058• 8·155 Mean

!Vicia II-IIJI'!garlan vetch NOL 5 -u 41 3.6 Vicia h!rsuta !tiny vetch NOL 5 u i 0.1

"''v'""'"' ""' ""'ssp. !soft brome FACU 4 75 5.8 radicata I hairy cat'sear FACU 4 15 12 1 1 1 2.3

Lo!ium...................... ftallfescue FAC· 3 3 10 1.0 monur Ired clover FACU 4 4 6 0.8

Anth.,.mi

moss, duff, dead DOES NOT tNr:l 11n1= ietc. CANOPY, IF ANY 35 2 15 1 1 2 28 15 8 fbare (soil, mud, rock) 30 40 1 40 1 70 25 4 60 ~-~L ..

:

~alcover: '76757516801184147~132501017249100 ~andbe~rco~r: 576775151~417810~131501017248~

Native cover: 22 61 40 i 87 21 98 5 53 41 25 95 55 33 49

Pe~ntAACand~~roftmal: 7589100009397 71009910010010098 85 ~~n.nat!~cl.futal: 2981~5221533833150~766749

r~·-----~-~-·~-~··-~·····+·--~·~~·~----.. ·-·~··-~+--....... t.-.... ~ .. ··~··-··· .. l-·--~~····4·--·-··~·-·-c·~·-······-·~l-·-·-+·-·-··+--~-~-·-·~c·-···~·-~·~~c-··~·~··~·-·-··+·~~~-l u..,;.,*"'"' Index: 2.09

('iJ~auF.Yua IPPfi A:q P~t::tlAO.Jd d-ew assa:) 'tmld 8unwrd pw uoHtuolSru: II as-eq(I ·g aJmf!il W(JOJ

1\J 0

t ----:'--1~-t--+~"-~-4---l g '"'0 :::r m

"-!-++"+ ""l---""-""l"" __ j $ 1'\.)

~ C)

~~--~-~+2cl~-~~~-~~~-J~ ~ :T

-t--t--~t--~~-i~~~-~~=-~~~~-t--~ m ~

Marion Mitigation Bank Cover Sheet 2009

Performance Standard

Areas of herbaceous vegetation dominated by more than 50% cover of F AC or wetter vegetation

Scrub-shrub and forested areas will have no fewer than 3 woody species and will have a stem density of at least 1 00 stems per acre

No more than 15% cover of invasive, undesireable species

Phase I

YES 91% (Emergent habitat)

YES

Met: Yes/No

6 species (in plots 2009) 554 plants per acre (2008)

YES Emergent Scrub-shrub Forested

0.3% 2.4% 0.5%

Phase II

YES 98% (Emergent habitat)

YES 6 species (in plots 2009) 1363 plants per acre (2008)

YES Emergent Scrub-shrub Forested

3.6% 17.0% 23.2%

2009 MONITORING REPORT for

MARION MITIGATION BANK MARION, OR

(Phases I, II & III)

This is the ninth monitoring report for the Marion Mitigation Bank Site near Marion, OR. Construction of Phase I of the site restoration was completed in 2001, Phase II was completed in 2003, and Phase ill was completed in October of2008. Richard P. Novitzki ofR.P. Maureen Stellrecht and Novitzki and Associates, Inc. prepared this report and designed and participated in monitoring activities. Maureen Stellrecht conducted or supervised weed management and other site maintenance and the routine monitoring of pond, and ground water levels. Ground water levels were measured at least once per month and the depth of water in selected ponds was measured when ponding occurred. Maureen Stellrecht and Matthew Price conducted the wildlife monitoring in January and June. Michael Bollman conducted the vegetation monitoring in May. Maureen Stellrecht and Matthew Price cut and sprayed blackberry, reed canary grass, velvet grass, queen ann's lace, teasel, and scott's Broom at different times during the year.

Phase I and Phase II achieved and exceeded hydrology and vegetation performance standards in each habitat type. An aggressive weed management program, initiated in 2005 was continued in 2006,2007, 2008, and 2009. Reed canary grass was a primary focus of weed management efforts this year. Velvet grass, blackberry, scott's broom, spatula leafed loosestrife, canada thistle, and other non-natives were sprayed, pulled, or mowed, as appropriate.

Hydrology Monitoring

Ground water levels were measured in 17 observation wells (Figure 1) and data are presented in Table 1. Wells 1 through 9 have been measured since December 1999. Wells 10 through 13 have been measured since January 2003, and Wells 14 through 17 have been measured since January 2004. Shallow wells S1 through S7 were installed to define the edge of the restored wetland in Phase I and they have been measured since April2003. Shallow wells S8 through Sll were installed to define the edge ofthe restored wetland in Phase II and they have been measured since March 2005. Data from the shallow well measurements taken throughout 2009 are presented in Table 2.

Wells 7-13 are located in Phase I and ofthese, wells 9, 11 and 13 have a water level within 12 inches ofthe surface for more than 15 days during the growing season, thus meeting wetland hydrology criteria (they are highlighted in Table 1 ). Shallow wells S 1-S7 are also within Phase I and wells S2, S3, and S4 also meet hydrology criteria (they are highlighted in Table 2). The areas represented by these wells are meeting wetland hydrology criteria. The boundary of the area meeting wetland hydrological criteria ( 10.06 acres) as well as the remedial area of phase are shown on Figure 2.

Wells 1-3 and 14-17 are located in Phase II and of these, wells 2, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have a water level within 12 inches of the surface for more than 15 days during the growing season, thus meeting wetland hydrology criteria (they are highlighted in Table 1). Shallow wells S8-S11 are also within Phase II and all four of these meet hydrology criteria (they are highlighted in Table 2). The boundary of the area meeting wetland hydrology criteria (16.80 acres) is shown on Figure 3.

1

.9

1-J

0 s~

s • 0 •

~~

~1-5

\ !2 ·lt\

0 41-----

.6 )-_3

~~\ (':j 1 .::0 Ia :;, ~ In ::c

0 S3

\ \(

I OBSERVATION WELL

ll PONDGAGE

0 \\1LDLIFE STATION

2 0 - .l·l "\'~ 2

a 1

J

!0 lv.:J .s .. \

0 k, ·v I ~. O S1

7

• Sl Phasell ~

~-1 Os2 I Phase I s~ 4

Figure 1. Sketch of the Marion Mitigation Bank site showing locations of observation wells, pond gages, and wildlife monitoring stations.

2

J •

Date 1 1/14/09 2/15/09 3/14/09

4/1/09 4/16/09

5/1/09 5/18/09 6/15/09 7/12/09 8/17/09 9/15/09

10/15/09 11/13/09 12/16/09

32 30 37 45 43 48 42 49 56 61 53 53 40 38

Observation Well Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 16 23 14 +4 11 8 12 19 16 +2 15 6 11 22 8 +5 14 7 18 36 14 +4 15 8 17 29 15 +2 21 6 18 25 16 +3 27 7 20 23 13 +3 32 14 22 26 16 10 77 18 24 30 24 34 84 19 25 31 29 46 92 17 22 31 22 41 101 18 23 30 17 45 112 5 13 18 15 +5 91 4 12 16 13 +3 37

8 9 28 7 29 0 32 3 38 3 39 0 40 11 45 25 64 37 69 38 74 36 79 60 84 61 70 52 48 32

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 28 4 3 1 +2 1 4 +5 22 2 6 +1 +4 +3 5 +4 37 8 12 4 2 5 6 +4 39 13 13 12 1 10 ·. 10 +5 41 15 17 19 2 9 9 +4 ! 43 10 19 18 4 13 7 +9 ' 42 17 21 16 2 10 8 +8 I

43 34 41 37 6 .. · 14 13 +5 62 41 53 42 12 26 27 2 70 47 63 59 18 28 28 4 58 49 61 51 10 17 19 5 I 73 48 63 52 9 18 17 3 59 40 45 38 2 6 6 +6 41 28 29 15 0 5 8 +3

Table 1. Depth to water (in inches) below land surface in observation wells (figure 1 ).

3

Date

1/14/09 2/15/09 3/14/09 4/1/09

4/16/09 5/1/09

5/18/09 6/15/09 7/12/09 8/17/09 9/15/09

10/15/09 11/13/09 12/16/09

Shallow Well Number 51 52 53 54

4 1 5 2 4 3

10 6 8 14 5 13 16 7 12 18 9 .·.

. 9

17 9 10 - - 18-- - - -- - - -- - 20-

i - 14-,_ ' - - - -- - 11 -

55 56

21 9 19 7 21 13 11 20 11 20 17 20

21 - -- -- -- -- -- -- -

.

57 58 59 510 511

12 18 0 2 4 10 14 3 1 1 17 16 2 2 3 23 18 3 3 1 20 19 3 4 5 19 17 5 6 3 25 18 4 4 4

- 6 12 •· .. · .. ·. 7 - 12 10 13 - 16 16 13 -- 14 11 10 - 14 10 9 - 0 1 2 - 1 3 0

Table 2. Depth to water (in inches) below land surface in shallow observation wells (figure 1 ).

4

3 1 0 5

2 4 5

14 14

11 11 i 5'

2'

Water levels have been measured in the reference pond (renumbered "2-1 since May 2000. The Phase I regrading created seven small depressions and water levels in 5 of the Sresulting ponds have been recorded since July, 2001. The Phase ll regrading created three major ponds. One pond includes the former reference pond and the staff gage at that location has been renumbered "2-1". A new staff gage was installed in in the larger pond to the west (2-2 on Figure 1) in December 2003. The completion of construction of phase ill in 2008 created three new ponds (3-1, 3-2, 3-3). Water levels for these ponds has been collected since November 2008. The water level data are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Depth of Water (in feet) in selected ponds in 2009 at the Marion Bank. Ponds (Figure 1) are identified by two digits: the first (1) refers to phase 1, 2, or 3; the second is the relative position west of Woodpecker Drive (1 is closest and 5 is furthest to ~J!st). ' ~-~---,-··-··-·---,------,----··--, ·--,--......,...-·-··--·~------,-------·-···----,

: 1 1 ~ 1 ! 1 1 ~ 1 I 1 I I I I \ : i i i I :

c==~~~~~--~==--=~~--~J~-~~----c~~~~~~-=--~=~~-=--=r==-T--~-~---c~=~--r==] i 1Pond Number : l 1 1 I : 1 ! '-~--~~---~~---~T----.-~ ----~-·------t--·~--~-~i--~-t--;--~·---·~~~---~---~---t-"--1 !Date 11-1 11-2 :1-3 ~1-4 11-5 12-1 12-2 !3-1 :3-2 13-3 ! }·~-~~----·---+----~-----+-:: : . ~-~~~ ___,--------..J..--..--~·-+~----·-···~-1 !_'!f_14t?OO~+J .28 + 2 .8'4 __ Q.._9~-(-=too_~-~:~o_; ___ 2~_LJ._.98 j_J_:_~Q~-~ .O~Q.jQ_j l _ _g~1§120Q~_i_1_~~~~8 I_LQ~..+-3.24 J_l_:D8 t _ _g_.sQw.o~~ .2.?_.t. __ 1.9aJ_J .. Q:W i~~/14~QQ~J o.~Q! 2.1611·6,tt_t~§+l·62~ __ 2.34....L1 .. ~!J_~1·4!q __ !·86J_J.:6~ I-··_4_!_1/?.Q.~]§_L.1.:1.Q+~:.S2+_?.:.!:q_?_.25j 2.05 i 2:~Q_-~_t7§J_j~O: ~:QQJ I 4/16/2009 I 0.86 I 2.00 I 2.74 I 2.00 I 1.96 I 1.84 I 1.92! 1.88 I 2.36 i 2.281 ~-~-----~-------t-------~-----r----·-----r~---!l"'-·------j----------r-------T-------1------~

J ___ _?/1/200~.+-.-.1:08_1~§ I 2:Q~j 2:.14 ~Q~t--!.9?.+ __ _!.98"_hf?~?·08 !. -~ 14_1 I 5/18/2009 I 1.20 LJliO ! 0.98 1.86 i 1.96 ' 2.00 ~ 1.94 I 1.52 I 2.00 I 2.0(}_J L. 6/15t2oo9j 0.84 ~...Q_._~?.I o.15 ~- o.38 ! o.15 I 1.30 1.s~+11!J._1.:~Ql.t~Q..i l __ l/12/2Q0~ __ 0.~6 1 OA2[~ ___ _L ___ _L __ ~ _ _Q:_~ 0.~4 ~--------L-----~-0.4~J 1-J~!.!.?.!?oo~--~.22J.~ ___ _l._ __ \ __ J,.., · ~~§4 1 __ o.6s_L-___ --+_o.64..LJ?.2~J I 9/15/2009! 0.32 ! I_ I_ I_ ! 0.98 I 0.70 I_ I 0.68 I 0.36! 11 ot15T2oog 1 o.4o rtrss-r-~--~-------r-----·T---1.30io.95 :-----ro.8s--r·a.42-1 r----~---+~-~---i~-------+=--------.J...---- --1-----r=----T-----j----~

1_1!!13{?00~-0.58 L..Q.:Z!.b ___ h ____ J.,. _ __j __ ~.20 L.?:~~-+~------1 _1.8~LQ&?J U~!.1§12QQ§)j_0.9§.L .. 1J O_L 0.30 J..J~_?.LLQ~l_2.66J..1~} 4_l__Q_.8?_L2-~2lJ .64J

Precipitation was below average for much of the year (Table 4). Despite this precipitation pattern, the ponds contained water until mid-June. Ponds 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, and 3-3 contained water through out the year. The rest of the ponds began to refill in October and November. These data confirm the success of the hydrologic restoration. Hydrologic perfonnance criteria (Novitzk:i 2001 a, page 16) require that " ... in most years (i.e., 3 out of 5) ... emergent habitats shall be saturated or shallowly ponded for more than 60 days (i.e., end of April) into the growing season" (that begins March 1--Morlan, 1999). The ponded conditions observed in 2009 comfortably exceed performance standards.

Table 4. Monthly Precipitation in inches in 2009 at the National Weather Service Station in Salem, OR.

JAN FEB MAR Observed 3.56 2.90 3.03 Normal 5.84 5.09 4.17 (30year)

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1.35 3.03 1.39 0.68 0.18 1.20 2.61 8.02 6.14 2.76 2.13 1.45 0.57 0.68 1.43 3.03 6.39 6.46

5

9

\

-.o-.uv.

~)~CVI

r·r"': 1'"""" 'li1::f.

L

Figure 4. Map of phase III showing f'mal contours after re-shaping of spoil pile in faU 2009.

8

Vegetation Monitoring - Phase I The plant community observed in 2009 is indicative of the continued transition

from grass seed production to restored wetland. The boundaries of the habitat types were revised in October 2005 as suggested by the MBRT to better reflect the as-built conditions achieved in Phase I (Figure 2). Sample plot locations will be marked and have a tag or permanent identification attached in spring of2010. This will allow the IRT to locate and identifY each sample plot during the annual field inspection. The plant species in each habitat type are presented in Appendix 1. The percentage ofF AC or wetter cover in each habitat type was: Emergent- 91 %; Scrub-shrub- 85%; and Forested- 75%. This is apparently a response to return to more normal precipitation since 2006 (Table 3). The dominant plant species in Phase I were jointed rush (Juncus articulates), marsh seedbox (Ludwiga palustris), common spike rush (Eliocharis palustris), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), and pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium).

The plant community in the emergent habitat remained excellent. The plant community in both the scrub-shrub and forested habitats improved significantly since 2005, apparently responding to wetness that persisted throughout much of the year. The herbaceous community in the scrub shrub habitat has improved significantly due to the increase in woody vegetation. A stem density count was initiated in 2008 and will continue to be done every 5 years in order to better document this change in density (Table 5). We would like to initiate vegetation structure evaluation surveys in future years to document the horizontal and vertical vegetative growth diversity as suggested by John Marshall USFW.

Habitat Emergent Scrub/shrub Forested

Percentage ofPiant Community FAC or wetter in Phase I New 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

54 93 91 88 98 91 48 68 80 84 90 85 27 49 57 58 72 75

\Ve discussed with the MBRT the failure of the extreme southeast comer of Phase I to achieve performance standards. Through the course of several meetings, including two on-site inspections, we have developed a remedial design that was completed in summer/ fall of 2009.

Afte.r excavation was completed in August 2009, we distributed a layer of wood compost. In October 2009, the area was seeded with a mix of slough grass, toad rush, and meadow barley. Already we have seen growth from many of the desirable grasses which were planted. Pictures 1 and 2 show the difference in appearance since the remedial plan was completed. We plan to spray the area with a broad leaf spray in the spring to combat any undesirable upland broad leaf species which previously existed there. We also plan to plant trees and shrubs in February 2010.

9

Vegetation Monitoring- Phase I plant community observed 2009 indicative

from grass to The boundaries of the habitat types were revised in 2005 as suggested by MBRT to better reflect the as-built ...... --..l!•!-- .... -. ...... 1....: ...... -~-.l !- T'\1_,_ __ 't /T"~ """"' n .. .. • ..

Picture 1. Taken from southeast entrance (southeast comer of Phase 1) at Woodpecker Drive looking west- the oak tree is at the southwest comer of the bank site. The photo (taken October 22, 2008) shows the area before any remedial excavation was done.

Picture 2. Taken from south entrance at Woodpecker Drive looking west towards the same oak tree as is in picture 1. The photo was taken in December 2009. It shows good growth of planted species, as well as water ponding.

10

Woody Species Density for the Marion Mitigation Banking Site

2008

Phase 1

Sample Location

F-009

F-033

F-097

F-109

F-205

S-020

5-040

S-056

S-116

plants per hectare:

plants per acre:

Phase2

Sample Location

F-083

F-076

F-090

S-022

S-036

S-227

S-195

F-103

S-073

plants per hectare:

plants per acre:

area of 10 rn circle

area per hedarn

habitat per hectare

samp. per hectare

acres per hectare

Alder

9 3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

38

15

Alder

0

0

4

0

0

162

217

3

0

518

Ash

16

0

0

33

34

5

0

0

18

458

185

Ash

47

22

39

10

0

0

4

4

0

404

164

314.2

31.83

3.183

0.796

2.471

Cottonwood Dogwood Hawttlom Spirea

0 1 13 16

2 0 3 9

1 0 0 5

0 0 0 10

0 0 0 9

21 0 0 12

14 0 0 10

2 0 0 23

5 0 0 8

143 3 51 383

58 1 21 147

Cotwnwood Dogwood EklmbeiTJI' Spima

6 0 0 4

7 0 0 7

4 3 0 6

5 1 0 4

1 0 0 5

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

26 0 0 13 0

216 13 10 137

68 5 4 55

Twinbeny Wlllow_1 Willow_2 Willow_3

0 10 2 2 0 11 8 2 0 3 4 4

0 0 1 0

0 0 2 1

0 8 3 0

0 8 2 0 0 0 1 1

0 40 5 0

0 258 92 0 104 37 13

Twinbeny Wlllow_1 Wlllow_2 Willow_J

1 12 8 0 0 7 6 0

0 14 50 0 0 5 8 0 0 5 4 3 0 0 6 1

0 0 2 0 0 36 256 1

0 10 362 12

3 344 54 1 139 2:1.

-Table 5. Woody Species Density for the Marion Mitigation Site Phase I and II

11

Total

58

33

13

44

45

49

34

26

76

1369

554

Total

78

49

116

33

15

6

8

339 391

3368 1363

Vegetation Monitoring - Phase II

The plant communities observed in each habitat in 2009 represents a dramatic change from grass seed production to wetland. The boundaries of the habitat types were revised in October 2005 as suggested by the MBRT to better reflect the as-built conditions achieved in Phase II (Figure 3). In 2009 the percentage ofFAC or better cover in each habitat type was: Emergent- 98%; Scrub-shrub- 87%; and Forested- 99%. Several desirable species are well established including soft rush (Juncus effuses), mexican mosquito-fern (Azolla Mexicana), common spike rush ( Eleocharis palustris), marsh seed box (Ludwigia palustris), and spotted lady's thumb (Polygonum persicaria).

Percentage of Plant Community F AC or wetter in Phase II Habitat New 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Emergent Scrub/ shrub Forested

83 70 88 90 96 98 66 70 66 67 79 87 61 53 83 80 78 99

Wildlife Monitoring

Five permanent wildlife observation stations at the Mitigation Bank Site (Figure 1) and five permanent wildlife observation stations at the USFWS easement within the confluence of the North Branch Santiarn and the Santiarn River approximately 3 miles south of Jefferson were surveyed in 2009. The protocols established by Niswander (1997) were used and surveys were conducted in Winter (January) and Spring (June). Data are presented in Appendix 2.

The list of bird species observed at Marion during wildlife surveys are exceeding those observed at the USFWS reference site (Table 6). The number of bird species (diversity) observed during the Spring survey (Marion 27; USFWS 19) and Winter survey (Marion 27; USFWS 17) at the bank exceed those at the reference site. In the Winter survey the numbers of individuals (abundance) at the reference site (164) is lower than those at the Bank site (591 ). The difference is largely accounted for by large numbers of Red-winged Blackbirds at the bank site. In the Spring survey the numbers of individuals (abundance) at the Marion site (241) exceed those at the reference site (152).

During the Winter survey 14 ofthe 17 species observed at the reference site were also observed at Marion. Ten additional species were observed at Marion that were not seen at the reference site. Five of these-Northern Shoveler, Green-winged Teal, Mallard, Wilson's Snipe and Red-winged Blackbird-are wetland species.

During the Spring survey 17 of the 19 species observed at the reference site were also observed at Marion. Eight additional species were observed at Marion that were not seen at the reference site. These indicate a diverse and functional habitat and food supply. In 2009 the diversity of birds at the Bank continues to exceed that at the reference site. During the Winter survey the number of birds at the Bank exceed those at the reference site, but several large flocks of Red-winged Blackbirds accounted for the difference. The number of birds during the Spring survey were also higher at the Bank.

These results show that wildlife, especially birds, are utilizing the Marion site and suggest that the restoration has been successful. As the site matures, wildlife usage likely will continue to increase, becoming even more like the reference site. Phase Ill of the planned restoration is complete, which will undoubtedly attract more birds and other wildlife. Deer, fox, pheasants, turkey, and large flocks of ducks were observed at the site throughout the summer.

12

Summary

Emergent habitats (ponds) at the Marion Mitigation Bank site contained water through most of the year despite below normal precipitation. This meets (and exceeds) hydrologic performance criteria (Novitzki 2001 a, page 16) that " .. .in most years (i.e. 3 out of 5) ... emergent habitats shall be saturated or shallowly ponded for more than 60 days (i.e. end of April) into the growing season". Scrub-shrub and forested habitats also meet hydrologic criteria, exhibited by ground water levels within 12 inches of the surface for more than 15 days during the growing season. Ground water levels at the site fluctuated much like previous years.

In the Phase I restoration the emergent habitat plant community is 91% FAC or wetter, the scrub-shrub habitat is 85%, and forested habitat is 75%. We regraded an area in the southeast comer of Phase I to assure wetland hydrology as specified in the Banking Instrument as discussed with the MBRT.

In the Phase ll restoration the emergent habitat is 98% F AC or wetter, the scrub-shrub habitat is 87%, and the forested habitat is 99%.

We initiated an aggressive weed management plan in 2005 to focus on reed canary grass, velvet grass, and other non-natives. We will continue to spray, cut, or pull non-natives until the native plant community is well established and less vulnerable to invasion by exotics. We have completed Phase m and regraded a small part of Phase I and Phase II to assure that we achieve wetland hydrology. We have introduced a stem density survey, which we will continue to conduct every five years, to more accurately document the maturation of the site.

Wildlife surveys show that the species richness and abundance of birds observed at Marion in 2009 are increasing and exceeding those at the reference site. This confirms that the Phase I and Phase II restorations have been successful and wildlife, especially birds, are increasingly utilizing the restored wetland. The Phase lli restoration has been completed in October of2008. Now that construction is completed and the site begins to mature, it will undoubtedly attract more wildlife.

The completion of construction of phase III along with the regarding of some portions of phases I and II will give us the opportunity to continue with successful remediation of this site.

CREDIT SALES--2009

No credits were sold in 2009

A journal of credit releases and sales is provided in appendix 3.

13

References

Morlan, Janet, Oregon Division of State Lands, personal communication, 1999. Niswander, Steven and Angela Niswander, 1997. Wildlife Monitoring: Lebanon,

Oregon Mitigation Bank Site. Report submitted to R.P. Novitzki and Assoc., Inc. Corvallis, OR 97330. 18 p.

Novitzki, R.P., 2001 a. Wetland Mitigation Banking Instrument for the Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR, 2001. Unpublished report submitted to the Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR, 93701-1279.

Novitzki, R. P., 2001 b. Construction Completion Report for Phase I the Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701-1279.

Novitzki, R. P ., 2002. 2001 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701.

Novitzki, R. P., 2003. 2002 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701.

Novitzki, R. P., 2004. 2003 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701.

Novitzki, R. P., 2004b. Constructio'P completion report for Phase II of the Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701.

Novitzki, R. P., 2005. 2004 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701-1279.

Novitzki, R. P., 2006. 2005 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701-1279.

Novitzki, R. P., 2007.2006 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701-1279.

Novitzki, R. P., 2008. 2007 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701-1279.

Novitzki, R. P., 2009. 2008 monitoring report for Marion Mitigation Bank, Marion, OR. Unpublished report submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem OR, 93701-1279.

14

Marion Mitigation Bank Phase I Vegetation Monitoring - 2009

Introduction, Summary, and Methods

This report summarizes vegetation assessment and monitoring conducted at the Marion Mitigation Bank (MMB) site on May 31 5\ 2009. The following table presents a summary ofthe 2009 vegetation sampling results:

The approach and rationale for the sampling strategy used can be found in the 2001 report on vegetation monitoring at the MMB. Sampling was completed at the same locations as in 2008. There were 10, 13, and 12locations in the Emergent, Scrub/Shrub, and Forested habitat types, respectively. No sample stations were completed in the Oak Savannah habitat type because that entire area had been remediated. In addition, three of the sampling stations in the Forested habitat type had been remediated and one had been sprayed, and one ofthe sampling stations in the Emergent habitat type had been remediated.

Species found in a one-square meter rectangular quadrat placed at each of the sampling stations were recorded and the cover of each was estimated as a percent of the quadrat area. Estimates ofbare ground and other non-vegetated space were made at each quadrat, and estimates of over story cover (canopy) were also included, if present.

Vegetation in the Habitat Types in the Phase I Restoration Unit at the MMB

Vegetation sampling data for the different habitat types is in the attached tables.

To calculate the relative proportion of typical wetland species, those with an indicator status ofF AC or better were considered. Species were assigned the indicator status for the Northwest region from the USFWS 1996 list. The most conservative National indicator status was used when the indicator status for the Northwest region was "NI" or blank. In determining proportions of cover for F AC and better species, the cover of those species was calculated as a percentage of the total cover. Calculations were also made which included: 1) the proportion of native taxa, and 2) a Moisture Index.

The following sections summarize the dominant vegetation within each ofthe habitat types. Unlike the reports for years prior to 2005, the three wetland types were not evaluated as a combined unit in later years. Each of the habitat types is evaluated only as a distinct unit.

Emergent Habitat Type

This habitat type was dominated by Eleocharis palustris, }uncus articulatus, Ludwigia palustris, Salix sitchensis, and Mentha pulegium. FAC and better species made up 91% ofthe total cover. Native species accounted for about 68% of the total cover in this area. The moisture index for this habitat type was 1.62, and 22% ofthe area was not vegetated.

Scrub/shrub Habitat Type

This habitat type was dominated by Salix sitchensis, Agrostis stolonifera, .Mentha pulegium, Lythrum portula, and Plagiobothrys scouleri. F AC and better species made up 85% of the total cover. Native species accounted for about 49% of the total cover in this area. The moisture index for this habitat type was 2.09, and 29% of the area was not vegetated.

Forested Habitat Type

This habitat type was dominated by Salix sitchensis, Deschampsia cespitosa, Agrostis castellanalcapillaris, Lolium arundinacea, and Hypochaeris radicata. F AC and better species made up 75% of the total cover. Native species accounted for about 49% of the total cover in this area. The moisture index for this habitat type was 2.51, and 24% of the area was not vegetated.

,. .. ,,....,.Inn 2009 Phase 1

·atal cover: I 65 I 93

Percent FAG and better of 100 I 100 l I 100 100 ! 36 ! NA i 100 I 91 Percent native of total: es i ee I 29 I 94 ! 12 I 61 i I I se

Moisture Index: I 1.62

~~- ~- ~-~ ~- ~~-~ ~--~~ 2009 Phase 1

Marion Mitigation Bank Plant Mu1muw1Q 2009 Phase 1 !Scrub-Shrub Habitat Type rcover (%)

Sample Station 1"· Name !Native MTI Wet E-035 E-052 E-0861E·109IE-123 F-009 S-011 S-020 S-02118·040 S-046iS-058 S-155 Mean: IVicia ~-'"'"""'"""" '""!:5"'rian vetch NOL 5 u 47 3.6 IVlcia hirsuta tiny vetch NOL 5 u 1 0.1 IBromus M ssp.

soft brome FACU 4 75 5.8 ""' radicata hairy eat's ear FACU 4 15 12 1 1 1 2.3

ILolium arun ... ,, .. ..,.,., tall fescue FAC- 3 3 10 1.0 !Trifolium'"''"''"'""'"' red clover FACU 4 4 6 0.8 '"'""'"'"'"" cotula mayweed """'' •v"lll"'' i •

"m odoratum "\IIIIJIO:SICI CIJieHIIl;ii!IOII6

ICerastium glomeratum·

moss,

~inking mayweed I sweet VernafgraSS lannualn:•!:Jweeu I sticky cl1 ~lettucesmall 1common

i DOES NOT INCLUDE. '~ANOPY, IF ANY

4

1

FACU I 4 UPL

35 I 2 I 30!401 11

2

1 1 1

1

1 I 1 I 2 I I i 28 i 15 I 8 40 I 1 I 70 i

2009 Phase 1

Marion Mitigation Bank Plant Monitoring, 2009 Phase 1 """'"

Forested Habitat Type Cover(%)

Sample Station

I"'"''"'"'"' Name Native MTI Wet /E-082 F.033 · F.034 F.071 F-096 • F-097 F-103 IF-144 F-149 I F-205 iS-056 /S-119 Mean moss, duff, dead vegetation, DOES NOT INCLUDE

1 I 40 etc. CANOPY, IF ANY 17 sp 1 30 refl'!_l rem rem 3 30 1 16 bare (soil, mud, rock} .. 5 1 3 sp 25 20 rem rem rem 4 5 8

Total cover: 81 125 61 NA 72 53 NA NA NA 122 72 117 88 FAC and better cover: 79 124 60 NA 45 39 NA NA NA 69 52 59 66

Native cover: 55 121 60 NA 31 36 NA NA NA 13 22 8 43

Percent FAC and better of total: 98 99 98 NA 63 74 NA NA NA 57 72 50 75 . Percent native of total: 68 97 96 ... t-JA 43 68 NA NA NA 11 31 7 49 .

I 1 Mniefur"' Index: 2.51 I

Marion Mitigation Bank Phase II Vegetation Monitoring-2009

Introduction, Summary, and Methods

This report summarizes vegetation assessment and monitoring conducted at the Marion Mitigation Bank (MMB) site on June 61h and 23rd, 2009. The following table presents a summary of the 2009 vegetation sampling results:

The approach and rationale for the sampling strategy used can be found in the 2001 report on vegetation monitoring at the MMB. Sampling was completed at the same locations as in 2008. No sample stations were completed in the Oak Savannah habitat type because that entire area had been remediated. In addition, four of the sampling stations in the Forested habitat type had been remediated.

Species found in a one-square meter rectangular quadrat placed at each of the sampling stations were recorded and the cover of each was estimated as a percent of the quadrat area. Estimates of bare ground and other non-vegetated space were made at each quadrat, and estimates ofoverstory cover (canopy) were also included, ifpresent.

Vegetation in the Habitat Types in the Phase II Restoration Unit at the MMB

Vegetation sampling data for the different habitat types is in the attached tables.

To calculate the relative proportion oftypical wetland species, those with an indicator status ofF AC or better were considered. Species were assigned the indicator status for the Northwest region from the USFWS 1996list. The most conservative National indicator status was used when the indicator status for the Northwest region was "NI" or blank. In determining proportions of cover for F AC and better species, the cover of those species was calculated as a percentage of the total cover. Calculations were also made which included: 1) the proportion of native taxa, and 2) a Moisture Index.

The following sections summarize the dominant vegetation within each of the habitat types. Unlike the reports for years prior to 2005, the three wetland types were not evaluated as a combined tmit in later years. Each of the habitat types is evaluated only as a distinct unit.

Emergent Habitat Type

This habitat type was dominated by Ludwigia palustris, Polygonum persicaria, Juncus effusus, Azolla mexicana, and Eleocharis palustris. F AC and better species made up 98% ofthe total cover. Native species accounted for about 75% ofthe total cover in this area.

The moisture index for this habitat type was 1.64 and bare ground accounted for 23% of the area.

Scrub/shrub Habitat Type

This habitat type was dominated by Juncus effusus, Salix sitchensis, Holcus lanatus, Phalaris arundinacea, Eleocharis palustris, and Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra. The Eleocharis and Salix Iucida were only in one quadrat each. F AC and better species made up 87% ofthe total cover. Native species accounted for about 63% of the total cover in this area. The moisture index for this habitat type was 2.69 and bare ground accounted for 7% of the area.

Forested Habitat Type

This habitat type was dominated by Phalaris arundinacea, Eleocharis palustris, Hordeum brachyantherum, Alnus rhombifolia, and Lemna minor. FAC and better species made up 99% of the total cover. Native species accounted for about 76% of the total cover in this area. The moisture index for this habitat type was 1. 77 and bare ground accounted for 22% ofthe area.

Marion M

Percent FAC and better Percent native Habitat 1 station! 2oos 1 2oos i 2001 1 2ooa l 2oo9 1 2oos T2oos l-2-oo71-2oo8-l 2oog

E I S-19 5 98 I 1 00 I ___!_QQ_j_ __ 1--=0~0-+i _1-:--::0--::0-+---:::9--:-4 -- +---c'-::-::---+----::--::-~f------c~-+-----:--:::-::---l F I E-014 100 I 100 100 I 100 I 100 84

HF I E-055 16 - 65 80 I 100 L R 1 f----~ - E-081 --76i9sl- 1 oo L~_o---+-i _1_o_o_--:~=========:====:=====:====~ E_ T E-091 87 91 I 99 I 97 +I _1 0_0-+---c------+-----~---~---+-----+--------------l F E-112 84 I 93 _J_ 100 110Q~I 100

~--~-~~~---+-1_o_o_l+, _1_0Q-t~-o~o~ __ 9~4 ___ +1 _1~0_0_~-~--+------~--~--+-----~~-~--~ F 13 I 79 I 58 , 67 I R F F-028 I 15 44 i 23 [ R I 18 I 9 ! 19 4 R

I I V 4 "T '-' I V 9 9 _j_ 9 8 l 9 9 -+1----:-:--:----+----:-:::--i------c:::-::----+------:::--+----:::-;:---+----:-:::---l S--- I F-070 68 I 52 1

-8-1 -~

l F-076 37 55 I 33 I _63_+-1 ------:-1--~--+------.--~--+-------:-c---c---!-----~ -s-I-F-:166 66 1 89 ! 93 1- 1 OJ-t----=1 o=o-+-----=--:----+---~---+------=~-----t-----:-:::----+--~--1

s I F-112 67 l 63 I 63 LJ33 I 77 ---+------=-==--+---~-----+--:::--:::----+----:::-:.:-----t-----::=-=-----1 s_-_L S-022 ----891 82 I -1 00 L1 oo--r 1 00-+--__ _1 S I S-036 89 44 17 98 1 100

---1-----=---- --, I --------------~---------,

s I S-056 38 I 57 1 66 ~-E_I 9~------+---~----~----+-----------+------+------s S-106 89 i 58 I 16 --4 48 171 §__ s~ 153 _1 oo D9-T-1oo f:-_1_o_o-_ -+1 =---c1o_o_, ___ --:::----+-----:------+----:-c---::----+------c-::-----+---~--s S-227 84 I 64 1 95 1 97 99

Means: I 70 I 81 80 86 94 43 61 I se 65 I 7o

R = remediated

Marion Mitigation Bank Plant Monitoring 2009 Phase 2 It= IEI,,I:#,!:Jt::lll Habitat Type -+---- -I -_( ~-=-' -±~t Cover(%) .

rc."_"_ ·~ --~-------·------ 'wet , Sample Station

Common Name Native Indicator MTI E-020 1-E-143 -E-160E:162'F-083 F-090 F-103 S-073 S-140 S-195 Mean II udwiai::~ palustris marsh seedbox yes " OBL 1 y 17 13 75 75 40 22"0 "UI)'~ui1Um f-11:::1'>1\..dl ld I spotted ladysthumb FACIJ\/ 2 y 60 2 5 55 1 5 40 16"8

:Juncu~ effusus jsoft rush ~es FACW 2 y 4 5 60 28 15 37 14"9 Azalia ""'"'""'' 1c' !mexican mosquito-fern [water-

I fern] yes OBL 1 y 1 2 4 95 40 142 • Eleocharis palustris I common t"' ""'~-'" •l:ll spikerush yes OBL 1 y 10 4 70 20 1 8 11 3 Holcus lanatus common vo::•vo::a~rass FAC 3 y 62 6.2 : Lemnl:'~."!lium angL•

M~L2r!_Mi~Jg(;l_!i2_r:!J?~C!D_k Plant 2009 Phase 2

~-~-----~---~-----~~-----~----------------"com;~~=;;=~~=~~~==-~==i~;~~~=~L"~~;~~-~~~t~eJ~~o2J~~fe~~so~~f~W~~~it~~~~1~~i~~73rs=1-4~fs:wst~~~-~

13 4

5

5

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1

l'li'l_a ri_2f1 __ ryl!~ig~~Lq_f1_!3_9_f1_~ __ f'l§!!l t __ M_2_n it()!J!!g_,__2 00 9 Phase 2 Scrub/Shrub Habitat Type I Cover(%)

Sample Station I ll;vuuuvu Name Native Indicator MTI Wet F-070 IF-076 • F-106 i F-112 s-o22 s-o36 S-056 S-106 [S-152 IS-227 Mean :erastium yovo, "'''alum !sticky chickweed UPL 5 1 0.1 Daucus carota wild carrot! Anne's

1lace NOL 5 u 1 0.1 Galium aparine

1 '-'"'''-'' '"'"'u bedstraw/ cleaver yes FACU 4 1 0.1

iGeraniUm '-CIIUIIIIICII !Carolina geranium yes NOL 5 u 1 0.1 Juncus tenuis slender rush yes FACW- 2 y 1 0.1 !_eucanthemum vulgare ~~~-r~c;Lsy UPL 5 1 0.1 Trifolium dubium UPL 5

·····--·-0.1 1

algae, moss, duff, dead DOES NOT !Nr.UJDE .

"• etc. CANOPY, IF ANY 17 5 17 3 5 7 5.4 bare (soil, mud, rock) 1 10 2 1 1.4 •

'""'"u'"l::l water (inches) 1 24

Total cover: 93 119 124 195 198 99 152 147 108 154 139--FAC and better cover: 75 65 124 150 1~8 99 140 104 108 152 122

-Native cover: 18 36 124 90 148 98 108 34 96 120 87

Percent FAC and better of total: 81 55 100 77 100 100 92 71 100 99 -87---~-

Percent native of total. 19 30 100 46 75 99 71 23 89 78 63 ·-·-···· 1-·

I I MoistUI Index: 2.69

Marion Mitigation Bank 2009 Wildlife Survey

Introduction, survey methods, and summary

This report summarizes wildlife monitoring conducted semi-annually as outlined in Niswander and Niswander (1997). Surveys were conducted in January and June of 2009 at the Marion mitigation bank site as well as at a reference site managed by USFW north of the Santiam river. There are five sampling stations at each site (figures 1 and 2). Observations are conducted at each station for fifteen minutes. Species are also counted when traveling between stations. All birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are counted if they are detected by sight or sound. Bird survey results are divided by those within a 50 meter radius and those further than 50 meters away. Flyover birds are counted separately. Also listed in the results are species of interest which were noted during the year at the Marion mitigation bank site.

Results

Winter Survey Marion mitigation bank

The winter survey was conducted at the site on January 22, 2009 from 7:45-9:50am. The results of the observations are recorded in tables I and 2. The total number of birds observed at and between stations was 591 with a total of 19 different species. The large number may be attributed to many killdeer in the new ponds of phase III and a large number of red-winged blackbirds observed in the willows of phase II.

While doing the survey, several other animals and tracks were also noted. These include two sets of deer tracks, a nutria, two sets of nutria tracks, and four piles of coyote scat. We have noticed a decline in nutria activity on the site in the past year. This is probably because of the construction of phase Ill.

USFWS North Santiam River reference site This survey was done on January 24,2009. The observations resulted in a total of

17 different species and 164 total birds at and between stations (tables 3 & 4). The highest number of birds counted were Canada Geese flying overhead. Other animals noted were two nutria seen feeding in the com fields, one set of deer tracks, and three sets of raccoon tracks.

Spring Survey Marion mitigation bank

The spring survey was conducted on June 3, 2009. At and between stations, 27 bird species were noted resulting in a total of241 birds. These results are displayed in tables 5 and 6. There was a large number of red-winged blackbirds in the willows of phase II, but otherwise the distribution was even between species. Other animals noticed during the survey were five garter snakes, two sets of nutria tracks, one nutria, one deer track, two coyote scat piles, and one raccoon track.

USFWS North Santiam River reference site The spring survey at this site was conducted on June 6, 2009. The results of the

observations are outlined in tables 7 and 8. There were 19 different species noted with a total of 152 birds. We also noticed one set of deer tracks, 4 sets of raccoon tracks, two sets of nutria tracks, and 3 nutria in the com fields during the survey.

Notable species at Marion mitigation bank site We are interested in recording more species that are using the bank site

during the year. As we observe what types of animals are utilizing the habitat as the site matures, we hope to gain a better understanding of the function of the ecosystem. For example, the presence or absence of biologically sensitive indicator species can give us a better idea of environmental conditions such as pollution, species competition, and climate change.

This year, several animal species of interest were noticed while working at the bank site. In February, several trumpeter swans, uncommon to the Willamette valley, were seen forging in the ponds of phase Ill. Another bird that previously hasn't been seen at the site was a bald eagle that was noticed in late summer.

There are many species of reptiles and amphibians using the site. This year, many more pacific treefrogs and red-legged frogs were seen at the site. The red-legged frog in particular is declining in numbers all over the northwest due to habitat loss and invasive bullfrogs (ODFW). This is a great example of the successful restoration of the site as a functional habitat. We are noticing a healthy population of gopher and garter snakes.

We have noticed several mammal signs at the site. Coyotes signs are commonly seen most often in the form of scat. Foxes have been seen twice during the year. Skunks occupy the rushes at the edges of the ponds in the spring and summer. Deer and deer tracks are seen throughout the year. In September, a doe was seen with two fawns bedding in the alder forest in phase II.

References

National Geographic Society. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds ofNorth America, Fourth Ed. National Geographic Society, Washingtion, D.C.

Niswander, S and A. Niswander. 1997. Wildlife Monitoring: Lebanon, Oregon Mitigation Bank Site. Unpublished report prepared for R.P. Novitzki & Associates., Corvallis, OR

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/

X s-1

s-q

Sparsely wood eel

Viet Fiefd

Ditch

5-2. ("Reference}

X S-3

X s-~

Ent~nc.e.

Figure 1. Site map for the Marion mitigation bank prior to restoration. X = survey stations.

·:;,~m~se~ ~tp. tl!tll!M s-1 suopms A:a.uns ;o uo!l"eOOl ptm al!S aoual~JQJ

J~AfH llmflUBS tp.ION S.M.dSn QtpjO dmn a:ns ·z QltUj!ti

.,

Table l. Bird Species surveyed at stations 1-5 at the Marion mitigation bank site in January. Numbers represent birds within 50 m of the survey station; numbers in

birds detected more than 50 m from the

l!:ll"lt'..cucn Junco Blackbird

Blackbird

4

56

Table 2. Birds detected between survey stations at the Marion mitigation bank site in Januarv. S= station (e.g. S 2-3 means between stations 2 and 3)

-~~-~·--~

SPECIES # LOCATION HABITAT

IWoodduck 5 S1-2 near ~ond 2-2 ~merican Wigeon 20 S5-4 ~lushed from pond Mallard 2 s 1-2 near pond 2-1

15 85-4 !flushed from south pond Canada Goose 20 8 1-2 lflvover Rock Dove 4 IS 2-3 !fly overs Red-winged Blackbird 25 S2-3 in willows

6 8 3-5 near powerlines Brewers blackbird 4 8 3-5 in ash tree Killdeer 50 82-3 in pond south of driveway Least Sandpiper 9 8 2-3 in pond south of driveway Wilsonls Snipe 2 82-3 on berm between ponds

6 S5-4 near road Dark-eyed Junco 1 83-5 in blackberries Song Sparrow 5 S5-4 in willows

!Total 174

Table 3. Bird Species surveyed at stations 1-5 at the reference site in January. Numbers represent birds within 50 m of the survey station; numbers in parentheses represent birds detected more than 50 m from the survey station.

Table 4. Birds detected between survey stations at the reference site in January. station (e.g. S 2-3 means between stations 2 and 3).

#

Table 5. Bird Species surveyed at stations 1-5 at the Marion mitigation bank site in June. Numbers represent birds within 50 m of the survey station; numbers in parentheses represent birds detected more than SO m from the survey station.

Table 6. Birds detected between survey stations at the Marion mitigation bank site in June. S= station (e.g. S 2-3 means between stations 2 and 3).

2-3 3-4 1-2 2-3

Table 7. Bird Species surveyed at stations 1-5 at the reference site in June. Numbers represent birds within 50 m of the survey station; numbers in parentheses represent birds detected more than 50 m from the "11""'"'''

S= station

MARION MITIGATION BANK 07/01/2009

DATE NAME LOCATION PERMIT ADD SOLD BALANCE

10/19/2001 DSL/COE CREDIT RELEASE INITIAL RELEASE 10.9 10.90

4/20/2003 DSL RECINDED 10.9 0.00

3/20/2003 DSL/COE CREDIT RELEASE PHASE I 2.84 2.84

4/24/2003 WILLAMETTE ESTATES, LLC 3900 NE SANTIAM PASS WAY, SALEM,OR 25263RF/1998·00145 0.500 2.34

11/13/2003 OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 1·5 N. JEFFERSON TO N.ALBANY 31156RF/2003-00622 2.330 0.010

3/18/2004 DSL/COE CREDIT RELEASE PHASE II 3.21 3.220

5/26/2004 OREGON DEPT OF STATE LANDS WETLAND MITIGATION BANK REVOLVING FUND 0.167 3.053

6/14/2004 CITY OF SALEM PUBLIC WORKS GEREN IS. WATER TREATMENT FACILITY RP12152/1996·01446 1.540 1.513

10/5/2004 WILLAMETTE DEVELOPMENT LLC 9795 MILL CREEK RD.SE, AUMSVILLE, OR APP32629/2004·00446 1.510 0.003

4/28/2005 DSL/COE CREDIT RELEASE PHASE II 2.19 2.193 5/4/2005 TIMOTHY YOUNGKIN NW 1/4 SEC.33,T13S,R01W,WM SWEETHOME, OR FP13667/1997·00203 1.000 1.193

6/30/2005 RICH BRANDVOLD T10S,R1W,SEC18,TAX LOT 100 SCIO,OR RF33917/2005·00074 0.090 1.103 9/30/2005 RICH BRANDVOLD T12S,R2W,SEC22,TAX LOLT 504,LEBANON,OR RF34107 /2005·00164 1.103 0.000 4/4/2008 DSL CREDIT RELEASE 2.5 2.SOO

10/3/2008 KSD INVESTMENT,LLC 11770 SUBLIMITY RD.,SUBUMITY, OR 41232RF /2008·00504 1.845 0.655 11/6/2008 KNIFE RIVER 9710 WHEATLAND RD N.SALEM, OR 39879RP /2008·0067 0.007 0.648 12/5/2008 DSL/COE CREDIT RELEASE PHASE Ill 4.5 5.148 12/9/2008 WOOD WASTE, llC DBA COMPOST OR TAX lOT 1700,8712 AUMSVILLE HWY, AUMSV!LLE,OR 39365RF/2007-00896 1.83 3.318

Bill Abadie Regulatory Branch Manager Regulatory Branch U S. Army Corps ofEngineers 333 SW First Avenue Portland, OR 97204

Dear Bill,

R.P. NOVITZKI & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4853 NW Bruno Place

Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 758-0057

February 15, 2010

Enclosed is the 2009 monitoring report for the Marion Mitigation Bank, near Marion, OR. Although precipitation in 2009 was mostly deficient, conditions at the end of 2008 were favorable for wetland systems and both Phase I and Phase IJ continued to meet performance standards. The hydrologic data confirm that the site continues to exhibit wetland hydrology with ground water levels within 12 mches of the surface in some wells into May and m some wells throughout almost the entire growing season. Many ofthe ponds contained water throughout the year, Construction of Phase III and remedial work in Phases I and II were completed in November 2008.

The 2008 plant community composition in Phase I is 91% F AC or better in the emergent, 85% in the scrub-shrub, and 75% in the forested habitats. Nine species of shrubs and trees provided a stem density of 554 stems per acre in the scrub-shrub and forested habitats. In Phase II the plants are 98% F AC or better in the emergent, 87% in the scrub-shrub, and 99% in the forested habitats. Ten species of of shrubs and trees provided a stem density of 1363 stems per acre in the scrub-shrub and forested habitats. Reed canary grass, velvet grass, and other non-native species were identified as a concern in 2005. Blackberry and reed canary grass slightly exceeded standards m the schrub-scrub and forested habitats of Phase II, but are responding to the aggressive program of spraying and cutting initiated in 2005. This program will be continued until the native plant community is well established, mature, and able to resist serious infestation by non-natives. The completion of Phase III will eliminate one source of seed from mvasive species.

Wildlife usage at Marion is also similar to that at the USFWS reference site. In the spring survey, 19 species were observed at the reference site and 27 were observed at Marion. In the winter survey, 17 species were observed at the reference site and 27 were observed at Marion. In terms of abundance, the Marion bank site is exceeding the reference site. In the Spring survey (Marion 241 - USFWS 152) the difference is significant, but in the Winter survey it is even greater (Marion 591 - USFWS 164) This confirms that wildlife, especially birds, are fully utilizing the restored site.

Respectfully submitted,

Professional Hydrologist Professional Wetland Scwntist

cc John Marshall (USFWS) Corey Saxon (DEQ)

Ann Kreager (ODFW) Yvonne Vallette (EPA)

Tanya Beard (Manon County) Lisa Milliman (Manon County)

scanned-image_6_20_2014_9_5_53scanned-image2_6_20_2014_9_6_51